ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Witness To A Jehovah Witness

Jehovahs Witnesses are at my door, trying to convert me to seeing things their way, The Christian faith considers them a CULT. How should I witness to a witness?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Cults Bible Quiz
 ---Cynthia_1 on 4/7/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (27)

Post a New Blog

funny how the only religion that is pursecuted are these jehovahs' witnesses. makes me want to look into them. southern baptists are not, protestants arent penticostals arent but JWs are. hmmm
---dan on 12/30/09

Here in South Africa this past weekend many 'Christians' took part in the 'Two Oceans' marathon. Ask any Jehovah's Witness why he rather runs in the 'Two Kingdoms' marathon. (Satan's versus Jehovah's) They will in all sincerity explain why you too should join them. (Heb 12:1, Gal 5:26)
---Colin on 4/12/09

Hi Scot,
Use of word 'Jehovah' dates back to AD1531. Cardinal Thomas devio Cajetnus, in his commentary on the Pentateuch regularly used it, EG: "Iehova elohe patrium.... (Exodus 6:3)
As is the case with Jesus, (Yoshua, Yeshua), etc, pronunciation of God's name has been lost. We should use the name in harmony with the language spoken, EG: Italian=Geova, Japanese=Ehoba, Catonese=Yehwowah, etc... Above the Dutch Reformed Church door in Kestrel, South Africa the name JEHOVAH was imbedded into the concrete. The church later called in a contractor to remove it. Odd world.
After all, God did say in Exodus 3:15 about his name Yahweh) "and thus I am to be invoked for ALL generations to come". (New Jerusalem Bible)
---Colin on 4/12/09

2 John :10-11
You are not to allow them into your house! You're not even supposed to greet them!
---BryanG on 2/9/09

BrianG, I know so many use this scripture to shun the opportunity to witness. I do believe John wrote that letter to a Church, not to let false teachers come in. I don't believe John wrote a personal letter to an individual telling them not to let anyone in your house.

I use every opportunity to witness. I'm black-listed from the JW's. They will black-list you and never return when you witness to them and you know your scripture.

God Bless!
---kathr4453 on 3/26/09

I am still trying to understand what this religion is about. for what I understand they are the ones that are saved no body else in the other religions. there is a person in your religion that goes knocking on doors in california and telling people that they must join her religion to be saved. this person happens to be my mother. in calf nobody knows that she has an older daughter from her 1st marriage also grandchildren. this lady called my mom she never ask me for forgiveness for all the hurt she has caused me. she has always put me down. by the way she was catholic at one time never study the bible caused she was too busy giving parties and working. she had a mother that study the bible day and night she study the catholic bible.
---janie on 3/19/09

Thanks scott...
I wrote this down,my brain works in puzzle pieces,I'm excited to study and read this with understanding to the Hebrew.

---char on 2/24/09

Matt 7:7-8
Were two of the first scriptures The Father used to jump at me.Or maybe I should say,I heard.It has causes me to listen closer.

I like reading it...

Ask,and it shall be given you,seek,and ye shall find,knock,and it shall be opened unto you,everyone that ask recieve,and he that seeks finds,to him that knock,it shall open.

Along with...

Rev 3:20
As many as I love,I rebuke and chasten,be zealous therefore,and repent.
Behold,I stand at the door,and knock,If any man hear My voice,and open the door,I will come in to him,and will sup with him,and he with Me.

Thanks for calling it out...
God's Peace.
---char on 2/24/09

char, Well said.

"Ain kaylohaynoo" Meaning (In Hebrew) "There is none like our God.")
---scott on 2/24/09

My blog can look cryptic at times...not my intention.
(YHWH):"He causes to become" is understood and noted...thanks.
Referring back to my original blog.
---char on 2/11/09

Well,ur wise. Scripture says it better and is safe in the hands and mouth. I get your points C your search. Takes a second or two to read your scripture witnesses. U tread lightly wisely... U believe.

Have found as you that only searchers look anyway....noted in scripture.
Psalm 14:2
Psalm 22:26
Psalm 22:27
Psalm 24:6
Psalm 24:5-7
Psalm 27:4
Psalm 27:8
...Thy face, LORD, will I seek.
Psalm 27:7-9
Matthew 7:8For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, ...
---Trav on 2/24/09

Thanks Scott,
Here's one beautiful thing I am thankful for.
God is God and knows each and everyone of us as he created.

As silly as we are,to say the lest,
he may not love what we do,what we say,how we act...etc...
but he still loves us.
Go figure....

God's Peace.
---char on 2/24/09

Char Re Your "Correction" YHVH

In biblical (or classical) Hebrew the "Vav" generally is pronounced as a "W". (Modern Hebrew as a "V").

That's why we get a modern (attempt) at pronunciation like Jahveh or Jehovah as opposed to something like Yahweh or Yehowah. Both reflect the Hebrew, one classical one modern.

Interestingly, very few biblical names (as they are spoken today) reflect the early biblical vocalization. Most take on a modern day pronunciation.
---scott on 2/24/09

My correction from previous post.

YHVH:Composed of Four Hebrew letters

God's Peace.
---char on 2/23/09

My blog can look cryptic at times...not my intention.
(YHWH):"He causes to become" is understood and noted...thanks.
Referring back to my original blog.

The message of Repentance and Remission.
Luke 24:46
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name amoung all nations,beginning at Jerusalem.


God's Peace.
---char on 2/11/09


The divine name (YHWH) is a Hebrew verb in the causative form and the imperfect state. The name means "He causes to become."

The rest of your comments (if directed at me) are so cryptic in their form that I'm unclear as to their meaning or purpose.

"If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" 1 Cor. 14:8 KJV
---scott on 2/10/09


Is43:10-13 (Read all)
...I-I AM Jehovah,besides ME there is NO SAVIOR.
I MYSELF HAVE (TOLD) FORTH...(it)to be heard, strange[god]...I AM God...I AM the same ONE...

Is 9:6...
...a CHILD born to us.
And HIS NAME will be called Wonderful Counselor,MIGHTY GOD,ETERNAL FATHER.

Taken to heart the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST(ACTS2:21/Joel 2:32)
IMMANUEL-God with us/HIS WORD MADE FLESH...Mt1:23/Jn1:14

What Message?...
SALVATION through HIS WORD:Repentance and Remission
God's peace.
---char on 2/10/09

There are hundreds of theophoric names (personal Hebrew names that incorporate the divine name) recorded in the bible. It was a common and acceptable Jewish practice.

Are you suggesting that since Jehu means "He is God" that Jehu is God?

Where do you find any scripture that says what you have stated? That "Jesus is Jehovah?" If it's "Truth" as you have suggested, surely your strongly held view can be supported with scripture.
---scott on 2/10/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

The truth is that JESUS is JEHOVAH.

Isous Pronunciation --s's (Key)
Part of Speech
proper masculine noun
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

witnesses do not recogonize that there is only one true GOD. They have One Big GOD then other lesser gods.

Witnesses also refuse to believe that we must be Born Again to see the Kingdom of Heaven. Many do not believe they can be Born Again since they are told only the leaders of the 144,000 are born again. These leaders are all dying off.
---Samuel on 2/10/09

It's only important if you take to heart the words of Jesus Christ (at Acts 2:21) where he quotes Joel 2:32 saying: "Whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered." ASV

YHWH is not Jesus. The divine name was recorded almost 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures. The Almighty himself clearly views knowledge and usage of His name as important, whatever the chosen pronunciation.
---scott on 2/10/09

Considering some of us have a hard time pronouncing somes words in any language...
is this more important then the message of Repentance and Remission?

The Word that became Flesh and dwelt amoung us.
This being the Word of God...

Immanuel-God with us

This Christ...Jesus,was the SAME WHO died and ROSE from the dead.

...for I delivered unto you first of all the which I also recieved,how that CHRIST DIED for our sins according to the Scriptures,AND THAT HE WAS BURIED,AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

It was Christ who Died and CHRIST WHO ROSE.

By His Blood sacrifice... Repentance and Remission is possible.

God's Peace.
---char on 2/9/09

2 John :10-11
You are not to allow them into your house! You're not even supposed to greet them!
---BryanG on 2/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

Alexander 1

We agree that YHWH would NEVER have been pronounced as "Jehovah" by the Jews. It ignores the Hebrew vocalization of Yod as "Y".

Again, I've not argued in favor of Jehovah or any other particular pronunciation.

However, what is fascinating is the sort of vitriolic view of the English pronunciation "Jehovah" in recent years when something very obvious is overlooked.

*IF* as many scholars contend (based on the theophoric names) a second syllable "O" is included, giving us something like "Yahowah," in ENGLISH Yod= "J", Waw ="V", simply giving us some version of Jah-ho-vah.

Hardly (In English) the abhorrent distortion some suggest.
---scott on 1/19/09

Alexander 2

While those in the "Sacred Name Movement" argue for a specific pronunciation of the divine name and the name of Jesus (often using questionable scholarship to base their particular choice on and often disagreeing) I would suggest that narrow focus on the pronunciation goes beyond the pages of God's word.

"...the true pronunciation of YHWH is quite lost."
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, pg. 9

"The true pronunciation of this name...has been entirely lost."
The New Ungers Bible Dictionary, pg. 781

"The true pronunciation of the name was lost during Judaism when a superstitious fear prevented its enunciation."
Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 316
---scott on 1/19/09


From Strongs: H1933 - havah {haw-vaw'}, a primitive root (compare ''avah' (183), 'hayah' (1961)) supposed to mean properly, to breathe, to be(in the sense of existence):--be, X have.

H1933 was infrequently used in OT and translated as "to be", but it does not mean Strongs' listing "to breathe" is wrong.

Also, the name "Yahweh" means "He who causes to exist".

Genesis 2:7: "And Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul"

So, He caused Adam to exist by putting His breath inside him. This is an indirect witness that the name "Yahweh" and breath go together.
---Alexander on 1/18/09


Strong's H1933 "havah" occurs exactly 6 times in the Old Testament, and is always translated "be", and never "breathe". (it is a variant spelling of H1961 "hayah", since middle Y and W are weak and often interchangeable).

Sometimes, the letter He is replaced by Alef (like English Sarah = Sara), but some letters are NEVER interchangeable even if they sound similar in English - Alef+Ayin, Kaf+Quf, Tav+Tet, Samek+Sin, (Compare English circle+serkle, etc.) So "havah"/"hayah" (be) is not related to H23332 "chavah" (Eve)/H2425 "chayay", "chayah", "chai", etc. (words related to live, life, living breathing creatures, etc.)
---StrongAxe on 1/18/09

Send a Free Encouragement Ecard

StrongAxe:"Where do you get the idea that the word "Yahweh" means "to breathe"?.. YHWH appears to be related to the verb "to be"

You are absolutely right. In Strongs, "Yahweh" (#3068) comes from 'hayah' (#1961) which means "to be". Strongs relates it to the root from 'hava'' (#1933) which means "to breathe, to be".

Psalm 150:6 says "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD (YHWH)". In Strongs, "praise" (#1984) means "to be clear (originally of sound)". Is it a coincidence that "Yahweh" is the sound of our breath?

He is the Creator: as an artist signs his name on the masterpiece, Yahweh signed His name in us.
---Alexander on 1/16/09

Scott: "Most, but not all, agree that "Yahweh" is accurate... No one knows"

I hope we agree that "Jehovah" is a men-made erroneous name. To make it simple, there is no "J" sound in Hebrew.

I provided the witnesses that Our Creator wants us, His people, to know His name. He is certain that His name will not be lost. "Hallelujah" (Praise be to Yahweh) sounds the same in every language: so, we know His name starts with "Yah".

We breathe His name.

Based on these and other evidence, I go with what I know to be true (or closest to be true). Then my conscience is clear. Does not this make sense?
---Alexander on 1/16/09

Most, but not all, agree that "Yahweh" is accurate.

"Vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHua'H or YaHua'H." Dr. M. Reisel, The Mysterious Name

"Evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jahwe'h was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton . . . The Name itself was probably JAHO'H.." D. D. Williams, OT Knowledge, Vol. 54, pg 269.

Diodorus from Sicily, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Saint Jerome and Origenes wrote Jao, the Samaritans, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Jahe, or Jave, Ludwig Cappel reads Javoh, Drusius, Jahve, Hottinger, Jehva, Mercerus, Jehovah, Castellio, Jovah, and le Clerc, Jawoh, or Javoh."

No one knows.
---scott on 1/16/09


"Yahweh" contradicts the evidence found in the "theophoric" names. Those names include a third syllable. For example note the Hebrew vocalization of Jonathon (Yoh-na-than' or Yehoh-na-than) with the third vowel. That would rule out a two vowel pronunciation like"Yahweh."

"The pronunciation Yahve' used in some recent translations is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes into account personal names that include the divine name, such as the Hebrew name of the prophet Elijah (Eliyahou)." The French Revised Second Version, Glossary page 9.

*The divine name or tetragrammaton YHWH means "He causes to become"
---scott on 1/16/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Where do you get the idea that the word "Yahweh" means "to breathe"? In the Old Testament, "breathe" is translated by the root "PX" three times, and in all other cases (in "everything that breathes") by the noun "nefesh" (NPS).

In Hebrew, most words are based on 3-letter roots. The verb Hebrew verb "to be" is HYH (and in some forms HWH). The 3rd person future/imperfect tense "he will be" is YHYH. YHWH appears to be related to the verb "to be" (as in "he was, he is, he will be") - in Exodus 3:14, God called himself "I am", ("ehyeh" ('YHY), literally "I will be").
---StrongAxe on 1/16/09

scott: "the actual pronunciation has been lost"

Several witnesses against it:

The Modern Judaica Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p.69 "The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced 'Yahweh'.

The Bible states the following:

"His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun" Psalm 72:5

"my people shall know my name" Isaiah 52:6

Finally, "Yahweh" means "to breathe", and we breathe His name (just listen).

"Jehovah" cannot possibly be the original name of God.

Let's do the best with the information we have.
---Alexander on 1/15/09


You asked the question several times, and I answered it several times. I am confused as to why you think I haven't answered it. Perhaps we have a communication disconnection here. Perhaps if you rephrase the question so I can understand just what it is you want of me?

As far as theophoric names go: Those beginning with YH are usually punctuated "yeho" or "yehu", those that end with YH are sometimes punctuated "yahu" and sometimes "yah" with no vowel on the H.

Curiously, the name YH by itself ("yah") is punctuated with mappiq, indicating H should be pronounced (something that never occurs at the end of the word in English, and is difficult for most English-speakers).
---StrongAxe on 1/15/09

Alexander 1

Since the actual pronunciation has been lost, to dogmatically hold to any particular one is futile. However there is considerable research that would bring the two syllable Yahweh into question as to it's definitive accuracy.

It involves the biblical "theophoric" names or Jewish personal names that incorporate the divine name.

For example according to George Buchanan, Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C.:

"Jonathan, which appears as Yoh-na-than' or Yehoh-na-than' in the Hebrew Bible, means "Yaho or Yahowah has given," Jehoshaphat is Yehoh-sha-hat', meaning "Yaho has judged."

In those names "they always used the middle vowel."

---scott on 1/15/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

Alexander 2 Cont.

With that in mind "a two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton like Yahweh would not allow for the o vowel sound to exist as part of Gods name. But in the dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms."

"In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as Ya, but never as Ya-weh. ... When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was Yah or Yo. When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been Yahowah or Yahoowah. If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been Yaho.''

Buchanan as quoted in Biblical Archaeology Review.
---scott on 1/15/09


I appreciate the discussion we've had. It has been most enlightening... for a number of reasons.

I'll have to draw my own conclusions as to why you are uninterested, unwilling, or unable to answer what appears to be a very straight forward question. I think I've already indicated why I believe that is, and why it will continue to be the case for you.

I'll wish you well and leave it at that. (Words I believe you have been eagerly waiting to hear). God bless.
---scott on 1/15/09


People in the Bible referred to God in many ways - sometimes they called him Yahweh/Jehovah, sometimes God, sometimes Lord, and by many other titles and variations. All of these were considered proper forms of address. So, yes, I believe that my position is correct. Do you have evidence that it is not?
---StrongAxe on 1/15/09

God, Lord, Almighty etc are titles, not names. Paul wrote that there be gods many, and lords many (1 Cor 8:5).

There are many titles, but, as a rule, only one proper name we can identify a person by. As an example, we all know an actor, Hollywood star, celebrity, scientologist, husband, father etc (all titles) whose NAME is Tom Cruise.

" Jehovah " is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Yahweh is the name that Our Creator (not people) chose for Himself (Exodus 3:15, Matthew 1:21): should we ignore, reject or replace it?
---Alexander on 1/14/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

After a lengthy discussion about the historic, rabbinical, scripturally unsupported, Jewish view of the divine name my question was:

What is YOUR position?

*** Is it right- since the view in no way reflects God's thoughts or inspired direction on the matter but on tradition?

*** Or is it wrong- for all of the same reasons? Is it appropriate for Christians to adopt the same view?

Right or wrong?
---scott on 1/14/09


You asked: "What is YOUR position?"

I thought that my explanation of "it's all good" illustrated my position quite clearly - that is, any term that both speaker and listener mutually understand refers to someone (including God) is an adequate form of address. Thus, the terms "God", "G-d", "Father", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "The LORD", "The Creator", "The Mighty One of Israel", etc. are all acceptable.

Except perhaps in discussions of semantics (such as this one) that deal specificially with the differences between these names - discussions about the meanings of specific names, or the appropriateness of their use.
---StrongAxe on 1/14/09


I appreciate (and agree with) your comments about language and God's name.

But, with respect, that wasn't my question.
---scott on 1/13/09


Here is my position.

Language is a matter of mutually understood conventions. So, as long as the speaker uses a word or phrase, and the listener understand what he means by that, communication is successful. So, whether we use the phrase "Bush", "W", "The President", "The Commander In Chief", etc. people know that we speak of the same person. In the same way, if we say "God" or "G-d" or "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "The Almighty" people know whom we are all talking about, and it's all good.

JW's aren't being deceitful, merely hypocritical by obsessing over using the "right" name, yet not knowkingly pronouncing it correctly.
---StrongAxe on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

Manny, Guess the first part of my response didn't show up.

For what it's worth...

To me "deception" is a hard case to make when the JWs have made very public, in print and in person, that no one knows the correct pronunciation and that while "Jehovah" is universally familiar it is certainly not the only possibility. They to my knowledge, have not hidden that fact. They seem to agree with Rotherham and Byington here and opt for using the most familiar name rather than not using it at all because the pronunciation has been lost.

Ironically though, when translators remove(d) the divine name from God's word and replace(d) it with "Adonai" (6828 times) is THAT not deceptive? Let alone presumptuous?
---scott on 1/13/09

Manny, Re "Deceitful?" 1

Not unless you'd call Byington and Rotherham deceitful as well.

"The spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name. There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like 'Lord,' or, much worse, by a substantivized adjective [for example, the Eternal]." Byington, Bible in Living English

"JEHOVAH [is used because of] the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye...the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name." J. B. Rotherham, Studies in the Psalms, 1911
---scott on 1/13/09


Great. Now that we agree that the view was not based on God's word itself but on a misinterpretation of the command and on Jewish tradition then I'll ask again:

What is YOUR position?

Is it right- since the view in no way reflects God's thoughts or inspired direction on the matter but on tradition?

Or is it wrong for all of the same reasons? Is it appropriate for Christians to adopt the same view?
---scott on 1/13/09

Judaism and Trinitarians believe in only one GOD. Witnesses believe in more then one god.
---Samuel on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


I never said that mispronouncing God's name was the same as taking it in vain. All I said was that the Jews believed that - hence their reluctance to say the name, and their preference for euphemisms for it. They justified it based on the third commandment.

This is a matter of historical fact, however, I was not attempting to say that such a justification was, in fact, correct - just that it did occur.
---StrongAxe on 1/13/09

Scott>> "The spelling and pronunciation..."

I can agree with that, but the problem is.. the JW themselves teach that for us to properly call and serve God we have to know His name.. They teach that we SHOULD KNOW His name, yet they admit that Jehovah, which they preach as God's name was actually framed only by modern translators and was unknown to ancients, whether Jews or Christians.

In their publications: "REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES" (in pg.192): "hence, some moderns have framed the name Jehovah, UNKNOWN TO ALL the ancients, whether Jews or Christians."

So why preach something that is false...isn't that a clear case of deception.
---manny on 1/12/09

Scott *it would be to put you in agreement with JWs and THAT would be unthinkable* But that seems to be exactly what you do by denying the Trinity. If you speak like a JW and embrace and defend the same errors... You seem to suggest there was some point at which Jesus did not exist and that He is a lesser God, not equal with the Father, and also reduce the Holy Ghost to just a force and not a Person. But if you say you're not JW, oh well...
---Geoff on 1/12/09

StrongAxe 2
The Jewish Mishnah (the collection of rabbinic commentaries that became the foundation of the Talmud) states:

"He who pronounces the divine Name as it is spelled out has no portion in the world to come."-Sanhedrin 10:1

Can you find any similar statement in God's inspired word?

The Mishnah does not cite a written scriptural basis for any of its laws since it is said that the Oral Law was given simultaneously with the written Law to Moses. Of course, and quite obviously, there is no inspired SCRIPTURAL basis that suggests such a thing.

"The avoidance of pronouncing the name YHWH...was caused by a misunderstanding of the Third Commandment." Encyclopedia Judaica
---scott on 1/12/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

"Tak(ing) the name of the LORD thy God in vain" is NOT synonymous with speaking God's name.

If so, prove otherwise...using only Gods word.

The Jews were held accountable for breaking other commandments like murder and idolatry. It's scripturally very well documented.

If speaking the name was synonymous with taking it "in vain" (as is the view held because of Jewish oral tradition) why is there no mention of God's displeasure in his inspired word? (Since it was spoken 6828 times over 1000 years?
---scott on 1/12/09


While the Bible does not refer to any specific incidents of the divine name being misused, surely there must have been some danger of this happening. Otherwise, there would not have needed to be a law against it. And not just any law, but one of the Ten Commandments. (And it is re-iterated many times, for example, the penalties for prophesying falsely in God's name - thus implicitly using his name in vain).

If you look at every other one of the Ten Commandments, these are also re-iterated over and over again, and there are many incidencts of people breaking them (and paying the consequences). Why should we think that this one alone is any different?
---StrongAxe on 1/12/09

I for one would not listen to anyone who is not of the true religion, which is ofcourse Christianity. After that, go with what you know. You might lose your faith, if you don't.
---catherine on 1/11/09

StrongAxe Re "The prophets...never misused it." (1)

I think we actually agree on something here.

But not only did the "prophets" not misuse it, there is no scriptural indication that ANY Jew "misused" Gods name by speaking or pronouncing it.

"All the people answered together, and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do." Exodus 19:7 ASV

Everyday greetings "May Jehovah bless you." Ruth 2:4

David didn't say "The Lord is my shepherd" but "Jehovah is my Shepherd." Psalms 23:1 in addition to using it 100s of other times.
---scott on 1/11/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

StrongAxe (2)

God's name was also incorporated into Israelite names like Isaiah ("Salvation of Jehovah"), Jonathan ("Jehovah Has Given"), etc.

And again in all the instances that the name was used (did I mention 6828 times over 1000 years?) there is no hint of inspired correction or disapproval on the part of the Almighty for its use.

That said, what exactly IS your position?

If the divine name stopped being spoken ONLY because of Jewish tradition without ANY scriptural basis for that view, is that thinking right or wrong from a scriptural perspective?

My sense is that, while you know the obvious answer, to state it would be to put you in agreement with JWs and THAT would be unthinkable.
---scott on 1/11/09

Amen Emily! *We should love them even if they believe something different then we do* Truth is truth, no need to get nasty or angry. Patience, persistence and prayerful dependence on the Lord is the way to win our Jehovah's Witness neighbors and friends.

StrongAxe *Jehovah's Witnesses cleverly got around that issue by translating John 1:1 as "the word was [a] god"* And they are not consistent even in the same chapter-Jn 1:6,13,18, also Lk 2:14, Acts 5:39,
1 Thes 2:5, 1 Jn 4:12, and 2 Jn 9).
---Geoff on 1/11/09


The Jehovah's Witnesses cleverly got around that issue by translating John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the word, and the word was [a] god" - making Jesus not THE one true God, but rather merely a subordinate god.
---StrongAxe on 1/10/09

Yeah, I learned about cults and Jehovah Witnesses. They contradict the Bible a lot! They don't believe That Jesus was God. John 1:1 Says: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
It clearly is talking about Jesus in these verses (1-3) I just thought that was a neat thought. The class I'm taking is very interesting. But just remember!! The people who believe in that have not known the Truth.... They are real people... We should love them even if they believe something different then we do.
---Emily on 1/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Chritians base their theology on the Inspired Word of God, generally as filtered through the wisdom of theologians who interpret waht those words mean. (For example, there are many doctrines that different Christian denominations believe that are NOT directly written in the Bible, but are derived from interpretations of the Bible).

Jews also base their theology on the Inspried Word of God, and interpretations of that word by their own theologians.

Invalidation of God's word by human traditions is something both Jews and Christians are in danger of.

As far as God disapproving of the use of his name: there's a good reason we don't find any of that in the Bible - the prophets who wrote the Bible never misused it.
---StrongAxe on 1/9/09

StrongAxe 1
The inspired record of Christ and the apostles is relatively brief (65 years) and much happened AFTER the inspired accounts that formed differing views of Christianity. So we compare the inspired text itself to the uninspired comments and "interpretations" of men who came later to ensure that we are not adding to or taking away from God's word.

However with the Hebrew scriptures we not only have God's inspired law but a 1000 year record of the Jews adherence (or a lack thereof) to it. We also have an unvarnished record of God's continual correction.

There is absolutely no evidence in the Hebrew scriptures that God disapproved of or corrected ANYONE for using his name, 6828 times, for over 1000 years.
---scott on 1/9/09

StrongAxe 2

The answer to your question then "Who has the wisdom or depth of experience to decide which "the" correct one?" is easy.

Christians rely on the inspired word of God. "All scripture is...beneficial for setting things straight."

Unless the teaching is based on God's word it is simply a tradition of men. If the command regarding God's name is now "interpreted" (after 1000 years of everyday use with God's approval) into something different (without scriptural support) it is not interpretation but deviation.

Christ said:

"You are invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down." Mark 7:13
---scott on 1/9/09

StrongAxe, From 12/30/08

"The spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name. There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like 'Lord,' or, much worse, by a substantivized adjective [for example, the Eternal]." Byington, Bible in Living English

"JEHOVAH.-The employment of this English form of the Memorial name (is based on) practical evidence personally selected and the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name." J. B. Rotherham, Studies in the Psalms, 1911
---scott on 1/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Software


As manny just showed (and I mentioned earlier), JW's simultaneously strive to call God by his correct name, and yet use a knowingly inaccurate pronunciation "because people are used to it".

This is in direct opposition to how they deal with other religious terms, in which they very deliberately reject traditional terms, and replace them with other words that mean the same thing, PRECISELY because people are used to the old terms, and they want to reject old preconceived connotations associated with those terms.

(Examples are "bishop" which becomes "overseer", "church" which becomes "congregation", and of course "God" which becomes "Jehovah", etc.)
---StrongAxe on 1/9/09

Jack>>"God does have name..." --Do you know that even the JW admit that "Jehovah" is not the real name of God?

They preach that we need to know God's name so we can call on Him correctly. But in the Foreword of the "KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES" which they translated in 1950:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation Yahweh as the MORE CORRECT WAY, we have retained the form Jehovah because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century."

They admit that Yahweh is the more correct pronunciation yet they continue to erroneously preach that God's name is Jehovah because people were familiar with it since the 14th century.

---manny on 1/9/09


The exact reason why there are doctrinal diffrences between different denominations is that different ones have different interpretations as to just how certain commandments should be interpreted.

So whether a particular belief is "srict adherence" or "distortion" ia matter of opinion, rather than fact. The ASV scholars obviously disagree with Jewish scholars on this particular matter. Who has the wisdom or depth of experience to decide which of these two interpretations is "the" correct one? I don't. Do you?

(Note that I didn't say that they were correct in this belief, only that they have this belief.)
---StrongAxe on 1/8/09

The Witnesses teach that JESUS was a created being an angel who GOD exalted to be his son. So they would never take a verse that applies to GOD and apply it to JESUS.
---Samuel on 1/8/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


The "reluctance" you refer to did not exist when Moses first spoke those words and it didn't exist for over a THOUSAND years afterward. God's name was commonly spoken. It was not "strict adherence" but a distortion and superstition of that command that developed around the first century.

"[The translators] came to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish SUPERSTITION, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament." ASV Committee, 1901

Referring to that as a "good scriptural reason" is fascinating. No doubt 1st century Pharisees would have agreed with you. I however do not.
---scott on 1/8/09


The reason for the Jews' reluctance to speak the divine name is based on strict adherence to "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". It is much easier to carelessly use a name if you use it frequently. While we may disagree with the degree of seriousness that they took this commandment, they DID (and still do) do it for a good, scriptural reason.
---StrongAxe on 1/8/09

The only flaw in your approach is that Witnesses do NOT apply Rev. 1:17-18 to Jehovah. It's clearly a reference to Jesus Christ, and unless I'm mistaken, that is their position. (The other two verses they apply to Jehovah).

You would have to establish, or prove I guess, that the "First" (Greek
pro'-tos) and "Last" (Greek es'-khat-os) of Rev. 1:17-18 is describing the same person as in Rev 1:8 and 21:5-7 although John uses different language (Alpha and Omega) here.
---scott on 1/7/09

I assumed that when you stated that "Jews have always considered the Divine Name to be so holy that they do not risk defiling it by saying it..." that you meant "Jews have ALWAYS considered the Divine Name to be so holy that they do not risk defiling it by saying it..."

Perhaps you're changing your position?

We agree on what happened (around) the 1st Century.

The question is: If the divine name was (as clearly indicated in scripture) used regularly by Jews before the time of Christ and only stopped being pronounced because of unscriptural Jewish superstition (rather than the direction of God) should Christians adopt that thinking or use the Jewish perspective as an excuse to avoid its use?
---scott on 1/7/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

To Linda: Thank you so much for your post. Certainly you have taught me a big lesson. I will remember this having read it many times. I also will paste it in my Bible. Thank you again, you have equipped me to be a better witness.
---mima on 1/7/09

Try this. The JW will claim to believe the Word of God. Ask them to turn to Rev 1:8. Ask him to read the verse. It states,"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end". Ask him who is speaking. They will say "Jehovah God". You agree and ask them to turn to Rev 21:5-7 and have them read it. Ask who is speaking. They will say "Jehovah God". You agree. Then you take them to one last passage. Rev 1:17-18. It states "I am the first and the last, I am he thatlives and was dead...I'm alive forevermore..." You ask who's speaking. The JW will say "Jehovah God". You say, "yes,but when did God ever DIE?" The JW will not have an answer. Then you interject "Only Jesus died. Jesus is God."
---Linda on 1/7/09


By the time of Jesus, the actual pronunciation of the Holy Name was largely lost by the Jews, and only pronounced once a year, by the High Priest, in the Holy of Holies, on the Day of Atonement. (That is, the only people who knew the secret of how it was pronounced were the priests who were permitted to use it on such an occasion). Now the New Testament does not speak of this matter (neither for nor against), however, it is attested to in contemporary historical sources.
---StrongAxe on 1/6/09


Initially your comments were about (not the pronunciation) but about the different, more intimate, relationship that Christians have with God compared to the JEWS and (in your opinion) that's why the divine name doesn't appear in the NT and WE use "Father."

And then you inaccurately stated that the Jews "Only dared pronounce the name once a year" (an unscriptural conclusion) then supported that view by citing "history and Jewish tradition."

If Jewish tradition ("superstition"-RSV) has not affected your viewpoint why use those references?

And no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness, although I am in whole-hearted agreement with them on this issue.
---scott on 1/6/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


You say that my "reliance on Jewish superstition is alarming". I have only mentioned two instances about Jewish custom in passing, and in neither case have I based any kind of doctrinal position on them.

As far as relying on Jewish customs are concerned, it's impossible to understand Christianity without understanding Judaism. The New Testament would be meaningless without the Old Testament.

You seem to be a staunch defender of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you one of them?
---StrongAxe on 1/5/09

Strong belief differences: the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

"So shall MY WORD be that goeth forth OUT OF MY MOUTH:

The returning is 'THE RESURRECTION'

---char on 1/5/09

You continue to assign or attribute words like "proper," "correct" and "accurate" to JWs in their position on the divine name. You've yet to provide evidence that they've used such language to establish their position.

Re "Lord" just won't do." If the Almighty wanted His inspired writers to use words like "Adonai" instead of YHWH (in the 1000s of places it appears), why didn't He do so to begin with? Had He made some grand mistake in including His personal name to begin with? How presumptuous.

Your reliance on Jewish superstition rather than God's own inspired word (whatever the pronunciation of His personal name) is alarming.
---scott on 1/5/09

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.