I thought this was old news. Oh wait… it was Michael Jackson who was raised in a Jehova’s Witness home. Hmm.. this sounds like another pop star antic to me; ironically, he probably is sincere, in a shallow, short-lived way.

I used to be a Jehova’s witness myself. The Church is pretty good on brainwashing activities…anyone may be trapped by them, really…it just happened to “poor” Prince. Oh well good luck to him!

Jackie, I’m curious, how does becoming a Jehova’s witness automatically make someone honest?

what’s funny about that comment “David” is that you stereotype and organization (baptist) and then go on to say you “believe you can’t just stereotype an organization”…

I have heard that Jehova’s Witness are a very odd group and I have researched and found that to be true.I myself would probably not let Prince in. Not to be rude but I would politely explain I have my own church and it is extremely different from any other movement. I am currently, and have been for my whole life, a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal church.God has laid a calling on our lives and it is glorious to recieve his spiritual gifts such as the holy ghost as described in Acts chapter 2. Believe on God with all your heart. Please feel free to visit my church at any time. It is located at 1011 East Old Hickory Blv. It is called The Turning Point, a Pentecostal Experience. Please come and worship with us!!

Someone that says he’s a JW does not have to be one. Just look at the livestyle and compare to the lifestyle of the ones you know or what they tell you when they visit you.

Question for Jehova’s witnesses: Why is it so important to use the name Jehova for God (as opposed to the other possibilities) when Jehova is admittedly a later construct, and not God’s original name at all?

j. comments on moral relativism aside, I have a question for you as well: “who are you you to say ‘who are we to judge’”?

You say that everyone needs to find their own path, and if that is true, then you are saying that all paths are correct. However, several of the paths you mentioned state that all of the other paths are incorrect. How can this be, if all paths are correct?

Your statement contradicts itself.

That is the part that amuses me most. Jehova is God’s personal name…

According to who or what?

Would like to have more scriptural basis other than Mathew 28, I John 3. to not only validate as well as substantiate the essence of the trinity. Especially when talking to Jehova’s Witness people.

By the way; John 14:6 says, “I am the way the truth the light, no man comes to the father but by me.”

Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. ³Jehovah² is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although ³Yahweh² is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning ³four,² and gram´ma, ³letter²). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH). The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.

When did the superstition take hold? Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name. One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.

What is the proper pronunciation of God¹s name? In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God¹s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ´Adho·nai´ (meaning ³Sovereign Lord²) or ´Elo·him´ (meaning ³God²). The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah´, Yehwih´, and Yeho·wah´. Ginsburg¹s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah´. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor ³Yahweh² as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah´ (meaning ³Praise Jah, you people!²). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh´, Yoh, Yah, and Ya´hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be´ and I·a·ou·e´, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as ³Yahuwa,² ³Yahuah,² or ³Yehuah.² Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form ³Jehovah² in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah´, Isaiah would become Yesha·ya´hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu´a (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous´ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

Importance of the Name. The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible¹s Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as ³Sovereign Lord² or ³God,² applied to him. Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: ³A study of the word Œname¹ in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his Œname¹ upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection.²‹New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430.

Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah¹s name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: ³Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ŒThe God of your forefathers has sent me to you,¹ and they do say to me, ŒWhat is his name?¹ What shall I say to them?² But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah¹s name. The very name of Moses¹ mother Jochebed means, possibly, ³Jehovah Is Glory.² (Ex 6:20) Moses¹ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God¹s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of ³God² (´Elo·him´) or the ³Sovereign Lord² (´Adho·nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites. Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just ³labels² to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram¹s name (meaning ³Father Is High (Exalted)²) was changed to Abraham (meaning ³Father of a Crowd (Multitude)²), the change being made because of God¹s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God¹s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses¹ going to the Israelites in the ³name² of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses¹ question was a meaningful one. God¹s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh·yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh·yeh´. Some translations render this as ³I AM THAT I AM.² However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah´, from which the word ´Eh·yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply ³be.² Rather, it means ³become,² or ³prove to be.² The reference here is not to God¹s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as ³I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.² Jehovah thereafter added: ³This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ŒI SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.¹²‹Ex 3:14, ftn. That this meant no change in God¹s name, but only an additional insight into God¹s personality, is seen from his further words: ³This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ŒJehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.¹ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.² (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha·wah´, ³become,² and actually means ³He Causes to Become.² This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name. This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah¹s later statement to Moses: ³I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.² (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning ³Father of a Crowd (Multitude)²) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites. To ³know,² therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David¹s name but still asked, ³Who is David?² in the sense of asking, ³What does he amount to?² (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: ³Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.² (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt¹s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God¹s carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, ³You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God.²‹Ex 6:4-8; see ALMIGHTY. Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, ³have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, ŒTherefore my people shall know my name;¹ or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, ŒThey shall know that my name is Jehovah;¹ or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], ŒThey that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;¹ we see at once that to know Jehovah¹s name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)²‹The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.

Exerpt from Insight on the scriptures ­ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. pages 5-12, part 2.

Jesus never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way‹not in power, not in knowledge, not in age.

In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God.

TIME and again, Jesus made statements such as: “The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing.” (John 5:19, The Holy Bible, by Monsignor R. A. Knox) “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.” (John 7:16)

Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18)

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo’gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible‹An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os’ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']“). This first the·os’ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os’ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os’ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo’gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”

Excerpts from “should you believe in the trininity?” 2000 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

LOL… puuuhhhlllleeeezzz. I am going to blog about this.

[[sorry JN, you are incorrect. oh wait, those weren't your thoughts were they??? they were the watchtower's...

John 10:30 "I and the father are one"

Hurray for the watchtower! spitting out lies and false prophesy since 1909.

Posted by: matt at May 11, 2004 08:04 AM ]]

I and the Father are one, is a symbolical statement. Its just like the Newly Wed. Where the Husband and the Wife become one. Of course, not literally, but symbolically, in purpose. This is the same with Jehovah God And Jesus Christ. I hope it makes sense to you all. The Watchtower isnt spitting out lies, may I ask you, for what? Preaching is an obligation for US ALL, Christians, the followers of Christ, dont we?

Great Sky – Thanks for posting. Once again, how do you guys find your way here?

As for living on THIS EARTH for eternity, where is that in the bible? Because I’m fairly certain i’ve read (just a few seconds ago) in revalation, that “the old heaven and old earth will pass away, and there will be no place for them”

How does that equate with living on this earth for eternity?

“Btw, im a JW.”

no kidding?

you didn’t answer my question. how did you find this site.

And I have just one question for you? Who is Jesus?

“As for living on THIS EARTH for eternity, where is that in the bible? Because I’m fairly certain i’ve read (just a few seconds ago) in revalation, that “the old heaven and old earth will pass away, and there will be no place for them”

How does that equate with living on this earth for eternity?”

If the old heavens pass away, does this mean they are not good? Where will God be in the mean time. Can you explane Matt?

regards

I found this site while I googled the info Prince and Jehova.

What was that for Andew?

To you all, plsssssss, ask questions now, including the WebMaster, all your confusions with the Bible, as I and some others might be able to help you understand the Bible, before it is too late. I didnt mean to shut anyone’s mouth, I’m just trying to help.

And Hi Reader from Brazil, are you a JW? Nice having you here. Good Luck.

What did Christ do on this earth? Died on a stake? What the… where did that come from…

No. I haven’t been silenced. I simply do not have time to sit and refute lies all day.

Jesus (God) died on a Cross in order to pay for our sins.

The wages of sin is death. If christ were only human, he would have only been able to pay for his own sin (which he had none, so maybe he would have paid for another). But since he is God, he was able to pay for an infinite amount of sin.

sigh I’m getting tired. e-mail me if you want to continue this debate. Or perhaps, start a thread on our ministry’s message board. http://www.rockisu.com/board.

It’s been fun folks. Comments closed.